button_masher

I get you (I think). Seems you're claiming at some point, surplus value can be shared across people who are willing to fight for it. Either via legislation, lobbying or through direct action.

Appreciate the recommendation of the blog.. it's a great rabbit hole and I think I got the graphs I was looking for..

(Edit..The graphs didn't copy properly.. I was referring to the ones here: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/11/02/the-us-presidential-election-part-one-the-economy/)

That rate of profit seems like a powerful metric. That scarcity mindset is never a great thing for an economy or even the psyche.

Thank you for the detailed response! Look like I need to move Das Capital up my reading list.

Thank you for that. Makes too much sense and feels like the big picture to put these things in context.

Would you be and to share some resources which helped you to this conclusion? No pressure if not!

Would be cool to see this on a graph somewhere (although I can imagine we can see the correlated variables react in kind). That's the problem of trying to sell the future and having the "promise" of future value. Seems with Trump in power, corporations will eat but since that value has to come from somewhere. Like you alluded, from the global South or from tightening the working conditions of the workers. And it probably still not be enough to "fix the economy". There is serious cost to inaction on our part that the future will pay.

My pleasure!

Ah yeah the article is somewhat circular referencing when it comes to evidence provided that having x amount of billionaires is fine and sign of a lovely healthy and beautiful society (as long as they align with party interests). It's interesting how there's an implicit assumption in China that there are things like reputation and power which can't be bought by money. But yes, I see where you're coming from.

I'm still trying to chew on your second point. It's gotten me questioning some assumptions. Billionaires feel like an inevitable emergent property of a market mostly because there are at least 1 billion people in the world who have different estimates of "value". I'm imagining an "ethical" billionaire who got rich creating some video game in his spare time charging folks a low $5. Would you say there's a flaw in the society for creating such a billionaire? Maybe it's on the backs of exploitative low cost chip manufacturers who make computers or some energy provider.. or is it that the market will balance since competition will cut into the profits of the first developer which then should, in an ideal world, would curb the growth of the billionaire. If I'm reading you right, you're claiming that there's a threshold after which there's implied "corruption" or collision to allow for unchecked growth?

In China's case (at least from the article in this thread, not OP), it seems they 'cautiously allowed' the formation of billionaires back on the day to 'supercharge' the economy with that extra profit incentive. It's what that money can buy is the big question and in which China claims to have a limit.

Thanks for engaging :)

I see where you're coming from. Having read the article, it feels a little self congratulatory, especially since we can only guess as to the motives of the party members and the state in general. There are interesting perspectives in the article which do point to a general trend towards the "belittling of Capital" and improving the general quality of the workers (*who fall in line with the state [*separate topic]).

I'm trying to avoid words like Marxism/Socialism since I'm still learning and it's hard to label without full knowledge. I am making a critical assumption that in a global marketplace, where there are monetary and non-monetary transaction costs and discrepancies over value, there will always be billionaires. A metric of "time to billionaire status" is probably better than "number of billionaires" to compare how Marxist/Capitalist the environment is. From the articles it seems that China would have a longer "time to billionaire" than a regular capitalist country. And there is a ceiling to that growth.

In a billionaire corporation, would you rather the workers be on a higher level of Mazlows hierarchy than one where the workers never get to see the fruits of their labor? Yes the exploitation of any worker is bad but at least from the articles perspective, the average Chinese worker has access to some level of housing and bullet trains and food etc. I presume that's what you meant by the "inequality in the micro" but please correct me if I'm wrong. The inequality suffered by a Chinese worker vs an American or Indian worker (or any other country where Capital has power over policy) is different. I have absolutely no data to back that claim but at least in principle, the worker in a less Capitalist environment is a little less exploited.

For the "inequality of the macro", the Chinese state is trying to be the only Power in town and making sure that Capital (and by proxy the billionaire corporations), does not control the government. When it tries e.g. Alibaba, examples are made. If billionaires are legit terrified of showing off wealth and are slaves to the party, that at least offers a ceiling to growth of the corporation, and by proxy a ceiling to the exploitation.

As I understood from the article was that the Chinese state has a slightly higher incentive to look after worker and make sure they're relatively happy since they're not "corrupted" by corporate interests/billionaires. They have shown some examples in the past to either infiltrate the corporation or keep the bourgeoisie in line. Of course I'm critical of the positive ratings and examples they are stating since it's hard to separate the noise from false/true signals. Happy to hear critique!

(Stating my position just in case: I'm terrified of one party wielding that much power over people and opinions. I value freedom over security past the line drawn by my potentially uninformed perceptions of China. Happy to update my beliefs based on data)

Radiation is vibration which is subject to destructive interference which means there will always be some dark spots, relatively speaking.

Unless God just had a single source with absolutely no barriers or observers. I can see why that God would get bored and invent some drama 😆

The best twist to this I heard was:

I doubt therefore I maybe.

The feeling of "ahh nothing makes sense but I'm glad there is at least one person like me in the world, even if they're a bot. In any case, I assume sentience and hope they liked it"?

Random silly imprints on humanity are my grass that I'm holding on to.

For a moment, there were two strands. Who knows what the future holds.

My circumstances were similar in that I studied engineering in order to have a "useful" career. Only when I got working, I realize how important the reading comprehension and philosophy actually is. I can't even imagine, like in the case of your sibling, that institutions would encourage mental dissection of such "silly fantasy stuff". Quite lucky.

Yeah I don't get how Herbert managed to construct this in his head. Everything from the Butlerian jihad to the shenanigans in God Emperor is still (in it's twisted way) relevant to our times.

I'm annoyed I can't follow people on Lemmy but don't worry, I'll try stalking you on the Internet just asking hear your thoughts on other things 😆 I may IM you for some podcast recommendations if you're willing to share. This was fun.

And good luck with your political work 🙏 Enacting change in any form is an uphill battle so fair play even getting in the arena.

You've helped me stretch my benefit of doubt to more than I expected. You hit on a crucial point that there was never a third option meaningfully explored. Think it's the problem of increasing the stakes so much, in that every people's opinions and ideas are taken to their extreme.

Regarding your moral struggle dichotomy, I'm more inclined to think that Paul being misguided since there is an acknowledgement that all of this is utterly chaotic and Rationality isn't as prevalent as one expects. Other than a few key decisions, evening falls into making the lesser of two evils based on naturally biased reasoning. No one is perfect and this is what happens when errors in belief aggregate to galactic levels. But as you say, it has quite a few moral implications and problematic in its own way.

Right. I think I've taken too much of your time and should cap this discussion before you end up writing a novel. Haven't had this much fun in a long time and I appreciate your engagement. You have a certain clarity of thought which is enviable.

Thank you Drivebyhaiku! Here's my attempt at a summary haiku:

Do not judge humans,

for you will always suffer.

Foresight makes it worse.

Trying to summarize your treatise, please correct if mistaken..

You're saying that Dune doesn't subvert the foreign Messiah due to the fact that Paul isn't shown to be wrong. As discussed above, for plot reasons and due to prescience. He represents a different face of Western colonial expansion and since a hierarchical undercurrent is always present, the subversion doesn't really happen.

Ugh, I agree. At least for his arc, it is shown to be a heavy burden but a necessary evil. It does propagate the idea "sometimes you just need to hand all power to one man who knows more than you". My bad.. I realize I may have been confusing the book and Villeneuve's portrayal of Paul (hope you do get to see it one day!).

For my education (as I am curious to hear you're thoughts [if you'll humor me but no pressure]), I will try to push the "benefit of doubt" narrative and still try to justify Herbert a bit in regards to the pluralistic viewpoints you've laid out.

I get what you mean by seeing the broader context. The Fremen are shown to have a fluid government, more democratic than the Empire. They have more connection to the land, understand their shared history, value of life, value of resources and balance. I'm imagining a rosy native tribe close to nature, drugs and shit. Paul goes there, learns how they live, somewhat adopts their values and is free from the matrix.

If Paul is shown as narratively perfect, then the 'indigenous' views he carries are also weighed higher than the Imperial mindset. Yes nothing may have changed since the Fremen slotted into a hierarchical structure and paid for it, I think still Herbert acknowledged that indigenous views were 'better'. A 'civilized' white man didn't teach them a better way of living, instead he was corrupted to their way of thinking and worked with them to defeat the Empire.

As to wielding power and somewhat adopting a hierarchical mindset, I naively believe that intentions matter. In Paul's example, he had the bestest of intentions. If there was no war, I think he would happily abdicate power, fulfill the dreams of the Fremen by giving them a healthy ecosystem and go live with his love (I would sidebar argue he actually loved Chaini and kept the princess as his concubine). I know power corrupts but what could he do other than fight for what he believed in.. I know it's all on trust and faith and lovey dovey stuff.

In your case, you acknowledge structures you're complicit in and with what power you have, you are trying to nobly change for better. Yes wielding power can be done "humanely" by asking for permissions and consulting everyone before making decisions etc.. but in times of urgency/high stakes, autocracy with a philosopher king/Jedi Master/Omniscient Paul is generally preferred. People who may try to fight you/Paul, probably do not want to pay the price of emancipation/equality. How else are we supposed to enact change other than using our power over others?

Dang you've made me reconsider a few things. You're right in that Dune is not subverting the Chosen One but more the Foreign Messiah trope. And also the fact that the Paul's arc is shown as tragic than a decent into Evil. Having Power didn't necessarily make him Evil but that depends on who you ask.

(I also love your phrases. "Wibbly wobbly..“ and fucking the dog...)

I do see your point of the lack of free will removing any morality conundrum off Paul. Depending on the scale of foresight (next week, next 10 years, next few centuries), the weight of each decision flips on its head. E.g. killing millions of sandpeople is bad on a small scale.. but super necessary when the entire human race is on the line. The more books you read, the more it feels that Herbert 'retcons' everything. The only insight into Paul's character and his decisions have to be judged before he went all Godlike (pre drinking Water of Life).

My introduction to Dune isn't as cool as yours as I mostly audiobooked so it's hazy. Maybe not with Jamis but potentially with Fade Rautha, he was faced with a Choice. With fight against Jamis for example, Paul knew he could most probably win so his actions were chosen. I brought the Dark Side theme (and conversely the Good) into this since the Taoist philosophy of the Force is quite sympathetic to the message of "understand your role is on a cosmic scale and please try not to have ego". Luke, if he was a Yoda level Jedi, may not have made same Choice as Paul (assuming Paul could only see glimpses into small future at this stage). He would have simply be struck down as Obi Wan had done? If we give Luke prescience, then yeah, he'll probably do as Paul does and try for the Greater Good.

True test of character is when you have incomplete information and then are judged by your intent.. and there are only a handful of moments where Paul consciously pushes the dominoes available to him. Paul is shown, in those few moment of actual agency, to make the Choice towards survival, revenge and Ego (one of which in my head can classify him as somewhat Evil on my scale, but different on yours since survival+family is a relatable and human trait). Whether he could glimpse 1Million years into future or 10 years, that's up to debate. Extrapolations on incomplete information is dangerous.. But he chose to consciously trust it. Surprise surprise, it was the bestest decision in the universe! Luke is shown as well meaning Good and, if in Paul's shoes, therefore would push the dominoes that favor immediate bonds and choosing the Right thing (not killing Palpatine when he had the chance for example?). Surprise surprise, it would be the bestest decision in the universe.

Yep, throwing in foresight completely allows Paul to sidestep ethics. And cue years of trolley problems. We don't have counter factuals and just have to play along with Herbert's word which as you said, jumps many sharks and takes plenty of narrative shortcuts.

My entire argument hinges on this assumption: prescience, as depicted in the books was not a 100% Omniscience. More like hallucinogenic coffee where your previous knowledge and biases affect the path of extrapolation. When Paul gets generations of Matriarch knowledge, he can extrapolate better and further. Before that, he's somewhat relatable and makes choices which can be looked at as self serving. Luke would have done the same.. Yoda may not have due to his trust in the Force.

(Sorry for the length. Thank you for engaging)